Serendipper wrote: ↑Wed Apr 11, 2018 3:20 am
I've asked about 3-4 times now for you to draw the line between life and nonlife: animals, plants, bacteria, viruses, prions, proteins, amino acids, organic molecules, molecules, atoms, quarks, energy fields. <---- draw a line in there or tell me ________ and _________ is where the line should go. And since you are the one drawing lines, the burden of proof is on you that there should indeed be a line there.
Actually, my response does something even better. It shows that a) we know that at one time there was no life in the universe: just basic elements floating in the vacuum of space (which must have also come from somewhere, but let's let that slide for a moment). So we know for a certainty that there was none at all of what we call "life." Equally certain is that we have an abundance of life now. So there must be a line in there somewhere, even if you want to argue we don't know where precisely to fix it. You can argue about the exact position: but about the existence of SOME line, there's no rational way to argue.
So here's the only question that matters: not "where is the line," but "how could there be
any such 'line' at all" -- which we know there must have been.
So you've been fully answered. Now the problem is this: how do you account for life suddenly appearing from non-living materials?
So what we DO know for sure is this: at one time, the cosmos had no life in it. Now, for certain, it does.
I don't know that.
You think that basic elements are "living" entities? Unless you do, you ought to know that for sure.
That's only a question for you within your theory. Mine has less assumptions and less problems to solve.
Au contraire: your theory requires us to believe that life just appears magically. Chemicals turn into immensely complex living entities with finely balanced systems, and do it all by themselves. That's what I call a huge assumption.
Yes, I think you're trying to say within that paragraph that every probability is a certainty in an infinite set.
No: I'm pointing out the opposite. If you have infinite events, but only a finite set of possible combinations, you might make such an argument. But in an infinite universe, you have not only infinite recursions, but also an infinite set of ways these things can be recombined.
Think of it this way: if you roll a
six-sided die ten times, you can increase your odds of rolling a 6 over your chances of rolling a 6 once. But if your die had an
infinite number of sides, then mathematically, no number on it could ever be expected to recur, no matter if you rolled it for a billion years.
And again, we're back to the question, "Why is THIS universe the way it is...especially, life-producing?"
"No reason" and "it was never void of life".
If the Red Shift is correct, and every reputable cosmologist today accepts it as fact, then it indicates that this universe once didn't exist at all...let alone contain any life.
No such thing as infinity.
Actually, I would agree with that, if by "infinity" you mean "an actual infinity," as opposed to a merely mathematical construct, like
pi. I would also point to "Hilbert's Hotel" as a good mathematical-philosophical illustration of this fact.
However, to say so certainly strikes a decisive blow against the idea of an infinite number of universes existing.
). I know I definitely am alive. Flowers, trees, emus and ocelots...they're life, life, life, and life. 